Woman loses Hitler photo compensation claim
An elderly woman failed in her battle for compensation from police amid allegations they damaged her valuable signed photograph of Hitler.
Dorothy Phillips, 78, from Clandown, North East Somerset, took the Avon and Somerset force to court over claims the photo, which she valued at £10,000, had faded while being held at Bath police station as part of an investigation.
-
The photo was part of a hoard of "sensitive" items seized during a search of the house she shares with son, Robert, 41, as part of an operation police admit was illegal.
Police searched the house in November 2006 after Mr Phillips became embroiled in a row with a neighbour and was later accused of making a racist remark. Officers confiscated the photo, flags, books on SS members and other material they felt supported claims Mr Phillips had intended to stir up racial hatred.
But Mr Phillips – who lived for years in the house of former Rhodesian Prime Minister, Ian Smith, a man seen by his many as an unrepentant racist – rejected the claims, saying officers were trying to smear him as a Nazi sympathiser.
The case was dropped and in January police accepted the search had been illegal and awarded Mr Phillips £7,500 in compensation.
But the pair were unhappy with the state in which the photograph was returned.
Mrs Phillips said: "I bought the photograph at auction, hoping it would be an investment for the future and kept it in a darkened room to preserve its condition."
Yesterday she told the hearing at Bristol County Court the damage to the photo would knock £5,000 off its value. The couple have twice before sought compensation but been unable to prove the depreciation in value. They have been unable to find a valuer who will touch such a politically controversial item.
Elliot Gould, acting for the police, said Mrs Phillips had entered an amended claim last November.
This was thrown out in April.
Yesterday Judge Bursell ordered Mrs Phillips to pay £1,716 in costs for three hearings but said if she ever found expert evidence of the value of the damage caused to the photo, she would have grounds to appeal.
Speaking after the hearing, she said: "I don't think we will ever be able to prove the photo was damaged but it has been worth pursuing.
"It just angers me that all this is the result of a search they had no right to carry out and we, the victims, have been painted as villains."
Mr Phillips added that the fact he was a "political animal" who collected memorabilia had been enough to paint him as a villain in the eyes of the police.
He said: "They implied that my possessions were sinister because I grew up in Rhodesia. But I have nothing to hide and am not a racist."
14 Comments
View all
by robert phillips, bath
Monday, November 10 2008, 12:35PM
“However much has this all cost the rate payers of Bristol and Bath.?”
by robert phillips, bath
Monday, November 10 2008, 12:29PM
“I apolgise for the spelling mistakes .i don't spend much time on computers normally and only realised the story was on the internet when a friend kindly pointed it out.”
by Peter Brooks, Isle of Man
Thursday, October 23 2008, 2:58PM
“Our ancient freedoms are being rapidly eroded. It is good to see that Mrs. Phillips fought back after an illegal police raid damaged her legally held property.
It would seem to me that £7,500 is paltry compensation for the trauma of a police raid. I wager that Mrs. Phillips had to push long and hard as the police tried to squirm out of it.
Those who condemn her or excuse the police action just because they do not approve of the nature of her property miss the point. What such people raise is worse than a red herring. British people used to defend the unpopular¿even when they did not personally approve of it. Those who do not are no friends of freedom.
Jon of Bistol seems to suggest the Phillips's have no right to hold a photo. Well, the best way to understand the difference between a true right and a falsely claimed right is that a true right does not compel anyone else to do anything except leave us and our honestly aquired property alone. That, Sir, is freedom.
It is sad how many condemn Nazi Germany¿and then happily adopt aspects of Nazi suppression. Their right to disagree with Mrs. Phillips does not extend to advocate attempts to suppress her.”
by Bobby Basic, Bristol
Thursday, October 23 2008, 1:17AM
“The Photo isn't going on a barbaric perverse form of homophobic anti-semitic Eugenics. So why tar it with the same brush as old Hitler boy. I can understand that it may offend some, but it cant really do anyone any physical harm, well that is unless you were catch your finger on it an get a paper cut.”
by Howard, Somerset
Wednesday, October 22 2008, 9:33PM
“An illegal police raid on private property because of suspected Nazi sympathies...
Oh! The irony....!”
by Spartacus, Bristol
Wednesday, October 22 2008, 9:31PM
“As much as I abhor the Nazis, if you substitute "signed picture of Hitler" for "First day edition stamp collection", where's the story?”
by Simon, Bristol
Wednesday, October 22 2008, 6:25PM
“Ah, the knee-jerk reactionaries on the BEP comment boards. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..... it's probably a fascist. Much as I hate to see Nazi memorabilia having any value, it is a perfectly legitimate item to own and as such she is entitled to claim for any damage it may have suffered.”
by Knot A Cannibal, Brizzle
Wednesday, October 22 2008, 4:14PM
“Hey Nigel - I didn't read anywhere that she was proud of it. I think instead she mentioned the word 'investment'!
I've got a copy of Cannibal Holocaust signed by the director. Do you think some twit might think I'm guilty by association? Or even (whispers) think I'm a cannibal as a result?”
by Nigel, Bristol
Wednesday, October 22 2008, 12:42PM
“What is this all about !! does this women know what that awful animal of a human being destroyed during his time, how could anyone be proud to hold a signed picture of Hilter. YUK”
by A mum, Bristol
Wednesday, October 22 2008, 11:30AM
“The family have already received £7,500 compensation from the police - talk about money grabbing. " An illegal operation" - so the police were found to have made a mistake - they have paid for it - why should they be held further responsible.”